• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"choice" party just decided they know better...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,032
8,412
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
thats like saying that if i don't want arsenic and mercury in my river i shouldn't dump arsenic and mercury in the water. Of course i shouldn't and don't, but that doesn't help me when other people do it.
That's the worst analogy ever. The environment is something we all share, and has wide-ranging impact. OTOH, it's not like anyone forces you to go to a smoky bar. Nor does the smoke go beyond the bar.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the difference is, when i eat a candy bar, i don't also force you to ingest a candy bar. However, when you smoke, you do force me to inhale that shit. This is about smokers depriving everyone else of the liberty to decide what they do and do not consume as much as it is about smokers having the liberty to do what they want.

the tyranny of the smokers is ending, good riddance.
What liberty are non-smokers being deprived of? Answer that.

And "tyranny of the smokers"? That's moronic. There's no smoking ban in the bars here, and I'd have to look hard to find a bar that still allows, as they are few and far between these days, and the only people in them are smokers. Most bars have already voluntarily banned smoking all on their own due to the pressure of their own patrons. Amazing that.
But I suppose you gotta pass your little unnecessary law to make you feel important, right? Somewhere, somehow, someone is still sinning, and that can't be allowed right?

Your post is a great example of paranoid reverse logic though. Seriously, you remind me of neocon defending the War in Iraq -- "We're not attacking, we're defending!"

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
thats like saying that if i don't want arsenic and mercury in my river i shouldn't dump arsenic and mercury in the water. Of course i shouldn't and don't, but that doesn't help me when other people do it.
That's the worst analogy ever. The environment is something we all share, and has wide-ranging impact. OTOH, it's not like anyone forces you to go to a smoky bar. Nor does the smoke go beyond the bar.
Air is something we all share as well, and its something that property rights do not fully cover, just like the river in the example. When the smoker uses the air for his own ends, the air is ruined for those aroudn him/her, just like the river is in the example. Unlike your area, there are no smoke free bars in my area.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the difference is, when i eat a candy bar, i don't also force you to ingest a candy bar. However, when you smoke, you do force me to inhale that shit. This is about smokers depriving everyone else of the liberty to decide what they do and do not consume as much as it is about smokers having the liberty to do what they want.

the tyranny of the smokers is ending, good riddance.
What liberty are non-smokers being deprived of? Answer that.
Perhaps my ability to determine for myself whether of not i consume the smoke from burning tobacco? Instead they are making the choice for me.


And "tyranny of the smokers"? That's moronic. There's no smoking ban in the bars here, and I'd have to look hard to find a bar that still allows, as they are few and far between these days, and the only people in them are smokers. Most bars have already voluntarily banned smoking all on their own due to the pressure of their own patrons. Amazing that.
smokers are degrading the quality of a public good (the air) and to use crappy econ terminology; decreasing the utility i derive from breathing. Hence smokers are harming my ability to enjoy my life

But I suppose you gotta pass your little unnecessary law to make you feel important, right? Somewhere, somehow, someone is still sinning, and that can't be allowed right?
This has nothing to do with sin, this is about choice. Furthermore, this is not unnecessary, because in many places, there are no smoke free bars.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,032
8,412
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
thats like saying that if i don't want arsenic and mercury in my river i shouldn't dump arsenic and mercury in the water. Of course i shouldn't and don't, but that doesn't help me when other people do it.
That's the worst analogy ever. The environment is something we all share, and has wide-ranging impact. OTOH, it's not like anyone forces you to go to a smoky bar. Nor does the smoke go beyond the bar.
Air is something we all share as well, and its something that property rights do not fully cover, just like the river in the example. When the smoker uses the air for his own ends, the air is ruined for those aroudn him/her, just like the river is in the example. Unlike your area, there are no smoke free bars in my area.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the difference is, when i eat a candy bar, i don't also force you to ingest a candy bar. However, when you smoke, you do force me to inhale that shit. This is about smokers depriving everyone else of the liberty to decide what they do and do not consume as much as it is about smokers having the liberty to do what they want.

the tyranny of the smokers is ending, good riddance.
What liberty are non-smokers being deprived of? Answer that.
Perhaps my ability to determine for myself whether of not i consume the smoke from burning tobacco? Instead they are making the choice for me.


And "tyranny of the smokers"? That's moronic. There's no smoking ban in the bars here, and I'd have to look hard to find a bar that still allows, as they are few and far between these days, and the only people in them are smokers. Most bars have already voluntarily banned smoking all on their own due to the pressure of their own patrons. Amazing that.
smokers are degrading the quality of a public good (the air) and to use crappy econ terminology; decreasing the utility i derive from breathing. Hence smokers are harming my ability to enjoy my life

But I suppose you gotta pass your little unnecessary law to make you feel important, right? Somewhere, somehow, someone is still sinning, and that can't be allowed right?
This has nothing to do with sin, this is about choice. Furthermore, this is not unnecessary, because in many places, there are no smoke free bars.
The only thing you are right about here is that it is about choice. Otherwise, you have effectively managed to use fear in order to make a completely backasswards rationalization. What's your next ban-dwagon? Farting? OMG teh Air!
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Vic
Don't like smoking?

Don't smoke.
thats like saying that if i don't want arsenic and mercury in my river i shouldn't dump arsenic and mercury in the water. Of course i shouldn't and don't, but that doesn't help me when other people do it.
That's the worst analogy ever. The environment is something we all share, and has wide-ranging impact. OTOH, it's not like anyone forces you to go to a smoky bar. Nor does the smoke go beyond the bar.
Air is something we all share as well, and its something that property rights do not fully cover, just like the river in the example. When the smoker uses the air for his own ends, the air is ruined for those aroudn him/her, just like the river is in the example. Unlike your area, there are no smoke free bars in my area.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the difference is, when i eat a candy bar, i don't also force you to ingest a candy bar. However, when you smoke, you do force me to inhale that shit. This is about smokers depriving everyone else of the liberty to decide what they do and do not consume as much as it is about smokers having the liberty to do what they want.

the tyranny of the smokers is ending, good riddance.
What liberty are non-smokers being deprived of? Answer that.
Perhaps my ability to determine for myself whether of not i consume the smoke from burning tobacco? Instead they are making the choice for me.


And "tyranny of the smokers"? That's moronic. There's no smoking ban in the bars here, and I'd have to look hard to find a bar that still allows, as they are few and far between these days, and the only people in them are smokers. Most bars have already voluntarily banned smoking all on their own due to the pressure of their own patrons. Amazing that.
smokers are degrading the quality of a public good (the air) and to use crappy econ terminology; decreasing the utility i derive from breathing. Hence smokers are harming my ability to enjoy my life

But I suppose you gotta pass your little unnecessary law to make you feel important, right? Somewhere, somehow, someone is still sinning, and that can't be allowed right?
This has nothing to do with sin, this is about choice. Furthermore, this is not unnecessary, because in many places, there are no smoke free bars.
The only thing you are right about here is that it is about choice. Otherwise, you have effectively managed to use fear in order to make a completely backasswards rationalization. What's your next ban-dwagon? Farting? OMG teh Air!
please explain where i used fear, i can't see it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,032
8,412
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
please explain where i used fear, i can't see it.
"Tyranny of the smokers"

Comparing an extremely minor and highly localized form of air pollution (so much so that it has to been indoors to be harmful) with dumping arsenic and mercury in a river. I sincerely hope you don't drive a car.

"Choice" and "liberty" becoming the right to patronize a privately-owned establishment under your own terms. Not only does no such right exist, but neither does any legitimate need exist that compels you to go to a bar. Hell, it might be better if you didn't go so you'd have more time to devote to your schooling (low blow, I know :p).

But I could go on and on. God forbid we get into the part where you said that smokers harm your ability to enjoy life, as though such a right exists. What's next? We pass a law banning name-calling?

I hate smoking personally, but your logic is the same and just as whack the neocon who told me we were "defending" America when we attacked Iraq.

The sad fact is that smokers and smoking is just the pariah du jour. Weak-minded people always need some group to hate and to fear and to blame and to scapegoat everything on. The only thing that changes from generation to generation is just which group it is. Today, it's the smokers. Before it was drug users. Before that liberals, hippies, blacks, commies, and Jews... keep going back, there's always at least one group being blamed for everything wrong in the world. Maybe we progressed a bit now that we tend to scapegoat people who make bad life decisions rather than just for the way they were born, but I'm not sold on that.
So tell me, beside the threat of shame, why should I join you in what is the oldest and ugliest characteristic of humankind?
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,079
186
106
Many bars already do this voluntarily.

If you refuse to check your keys and they will not serve you alcohol.

If you refuse breath test they hold your keys and call a cab.

If you get beligerent they call the police.

Most places have off duty police on staff now.



Stash a spare key in the glove box... How easy would that be?

Not like I have a spare key, I do have one but it's not the RFID one, only good for locking myself out of my car if it should ever happen.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,056
363
126
Originally posted by: ericlp
Many bars already do this voluntarily.

If you refuse to check your keys and they will not serve you alcohol.

If you refuse breath test they hold your keys and call a cab.


If you get beligerent they call the police.

Most places have off duty police on staff now.



Stash a spare key in the glove box... How easy would that be?

Not like I have a spare key, I do have one but it's not the RFID one, only good for locking myself out of my car if it should ever happen.
Where have you been that they do this? I have never been to a bar that has even asked me to check my keys, and I have definitely never been to a bar that has asked or forced anyone to take a breathalyzer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY